ISO 9004 Managing for the sustained success of an organization - Update May 2017

[Stijloor]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

Jan, don't let the cat out of the bag...of course consultants are rich! We are living fat cat lives because the quality of our work is so splendid that the business world just shoves bags of money at us...let 'em keep believing it.

Right on Helmut! I would not change my job for the world. Been doing this happily for 21 years.

Some time ago, a guy asked me: "how about a getting a permanent job?"
My response was: "tell me what a permanent job is."

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

Right on Helmut! I would not change my job for the world. Been doing this happily for 21 years.

Some time ago, a guy asked me: "how about a getting a permanent job?"
My response was: "tell me what a permanent job is."

In today's global marketplace, I suggest everyone is a self-employed company-of-one. Those who work from that perspective are likely to do pretty well in the long haul, and weather downturns better that the old employee-for-life perspective.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

Isn't the above exactly what executive management does? They have to address all business facets in their business plans.

But there is no standard they follow that covers all of the business facets. One of the reasons why we have international, national, industry standards is exactly to promote minimum levels of performance on certain aspects of businesses.

But, let me throw this question at you: Can you elaborate what would be table of contents for this business management system standard you would would like to have? Give it a try. I think you will soon realize that it would be a daunting task.

 

[JaneB]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

So close but still so far...

The "dirty word" only appears twice now - good progress indeed!

Managing for sustainability – A quality management system approach

4 Quality management principles

Any hope they will finish the job and change "quality" to "business" everywhere it crops up?

How great would it be to have the boss call a meeting and demand we get behind his new Sustainable Business Management System!

Now that would be stealth quality!

Caster,

I can understand your point of view, but disagree strongly with your desire to replace the word 'quality' with the word 'business'.

I may well encourage a particular client in a business to call their QMS their business management system if that sounds good to them & works well for them. I don't accept that quality is a 'dirty' word across the world - far from it (look how often it's used in marketing!) - but in some organisations it has come to be so, alas and alack. Sounds like this may have been your experience. But IMO whether to rename/not comes back to what works in individual organisations. Sometimes renaming something isn't always the best way of confronting a problem, nor effective. Sometimes it is.

But I would never either advocate or support this change of terminology in any of the Standards documents.

They are not synonymous terms.

But far more importantly, the 9000 series quite deliberately, and IMO correctly don't use the word 'business'.

(In fact, some time when I have a lot of time on my hands & nothing to do - ha! - I may go through it looking for the word business - I'm not sure it appears at all.).

The term that does appear, over and over again, is organisation.

An organisation may or may not be a business.

While I understand that there is a strong bias toward commercial organisations in the Cove, presumably for obvious reasons, there are other kinds of organisations! Some of the various non-commercial ones I've had as clients include professional associations, training organisations and non-profit service organisations. Reading something with 'business' throughout would turn most if not all of them off completely, as they'd figure it didn't apply to them.

As long as they leave that "dirty word" in the title, this will always be relegated / delegated to the quality ghetto and assigned to a person without the authority to implement the activities required. And it will be seen as a cost, the approach will be to do the least possible, and no benefits will accrue to the organization.

Nope, not always true. Even several white crows don't mean all crows are and will always be white.

These and many more besides can, do and have benefited from using ISO 9001 (just as an example), and may choose to use 9004. Please don't try to exclude them.

 

[JaneB]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

It has to be a voluntary standard. Only those who "get it" can effectively use it, and those types won't be confused by the word "quality" appearing in it.

It has been a great tool, and progressive companies have benefitted from it.

Excellent point, Helmut, and very true.

 

[michellemmm]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

Can you elaborate what would be table of contents for this business management system standard you would would like to have? Give it a try. I think you will soon realize that it would be a daunting task.

Great question. I am still thinking.

I have another question.

Do you know if anyone has done a study on how many certified companies go out of business?
There is a company near where I live which is closing down soon. This place is a show case and first class, best people and equipment etc. They have gone through lean sigma and are ISO 9k and 13485 certified. Yet, they don't want to sell the business and only going to liquidate assets...
I wonder how many other companies like this exist. Does ISO care?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

Does this mean anyone can request a draft for comment?

Anybody can request it, but....

I thought that was for Ireland only...

I had sent an email to the address listed. Today I got a reply back stating that CD3 would only be sent to people/organizations in Ireland. Maybe if I try again during St. Patrick's Day, they will be more accomodating...

 

[Caster]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

let me throw this question at you: Can you elaborate what would be table of contents for this business management system standard you would would like to have? Give it a try. I think you will soon realize that it would be a daunting task.

Sidney, Stijloor - let me say more clearly "some consultants" peddle poorly understood versions of other peoples ideas. I have learned tons from you both over the years here on the Cove. Thanks for sharing so freely, and thanks for forcing me to re think / defend my post, this is a huge learning opportunity for me.

ToC for a BMS requirement - I see it as dead easy, just consult any business school course calendar. Harvard MBA would be a start. What about the Baldridge criteria?

About the only idea I put forth that is not shredded yet is :

"Quality is an output, it is a result of business (or organization) decisions made."

I really see it that way. What say you to this?

The business/the organization has to drive this thing to get results, the quality department can't. We don't have the keys to the car. We are in the car and are going along for the ride, but we don't control where the car is going.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

ToC for a BMS requirement - I see it as dead easy, just consult any business school course calendar. Harvard MBA would be a start. What about the Baldridge criteria?

I appreciate your intent, but I suggest your answer is too simplistic. I'll take Sidney's position in this. I would love to see something like a BMS work. But, quality is a choice, just like integrity. To actually postulate a standard, clause by clause, and make it enforcable and auditable, (not to mention get a worldwide body of delegates to vote approval), would be a daunting task. I am pretty sure I could not do it, in a manner that would actually take root.

About the only idea I put forth that is not shredded yet is :

"Quality is an output, it is a result of business (or organization) decisions made."

I really see it that way. What say you to this?

The business/the organization has to drive this thing to get results, the quality department can't. We don't have the keys to the car. We are in the car and are going along for the ride, but we don't control where the car is going.

I agree that Quality is a result (output). But, I also suggest, as an internal Quality Professional, your role is to be the lonely voice of a quality evangelistic, and convert the masses. Present a message that your management will accept. You are a missionary, and it would be good to read a little as to how that field operates.

 

[Caster]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

.....I would love to see something like a BMS work. But, quality is a choice, just like integrity. To actually postulate a standard, clause by clause, and make it enforcable and auditable, (not to mention get a worldwide body of delegates to vote approval), would be a daunting task. I am pretty sure I could not do it, in a manner that would actually take root. I agree that Quality is a result (output). But, I also suggest, as an internal Quality Professional, your role is to be the lonely voice of a quality evangelistic, and convert the masses. Present a message that your management will accept. You are a missionary, and it would be good to read a little as to how that field operates.

One last post and I will stand down from this train of thought.

OK, so why did my (our) profession get a clause by clause enforceable and auditable standard, approved by a worldwide body (ISO 9001).

What is so special about "management" that something similar can't be done.

Or what is so wrong with us in "quality" that we need it and they don't?

Sorry it just rubs me wrong.

I agree that all staff people suffer from a similar problem. We need to sell our ideas. We need to present justifications, data, paybacks and so on.

Sadly the same high expectation does not apply for some "managers". Some of them are not bound by the reality we live in, as well demonstrated by Dilberts pointy haired boss.

I guess I am lucky to have once had a leader who "got it". With his support and direction we Rocked our World. It was the most fun I have ever had at work. Every day was a treat. Order of magnitude improvements.

When he retired the company passed to a traditional accounting type manager, it only took a few years to destroy all the gains. He was the boss and he knew the way to fix all problems was easy, just cut costs.

I once saw myself in the role of a missionary, but a lot of them paid a terrible price for their faith. As did I in this role, I hurt myself and my career.

I now see myself in the role of a 12 step councillor (AA). When the person is ready to admit there is a problem, I am there to offer endless support. I find this a lot easier on my mental health. I use every opportunity to help people see the problems, but until they ask for help...you can't push on a rope.

Thanks...a great discussion!